Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

vvaduva writes "Florida Rep. Alan Grayson wants to see one of his critics go directly to jail, all over her use of the word 'my' on her blog. In a four-page letter sent to [US Attorney General Eric] Holder, Grayson accuses blogger Angie Langley of lying to federal elections officials and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years. Her lie, according to Grayson, is that she claims to be one of his constituents. Langley, Grayson says, is misrepresenting herself by using the term 'my' in the Web site's name."

I am not a lawyer. From the letter [foxnews.com] the complaint seems to be divided into two parts (note that "the Committee" refers directly to MyCongressmanIsNuts.com):

As explained below, Ms. Langley and the Committee falsely
represented to the Federal Election Commission that the Committee
"supports or opposes more than one candidate." In fact, however, the
committee name corresponds to a website that attacks me and only me,
while soliciting contributions to be used against only me. Moreover, Ms.
Langley has falsely depicted herself as a constituent, in order to further this
scheme.

Although you may claim it's just another stupid technicality that Florida Rep. Alan Grayson clings to in order to shut down a website that is probably too painfully close to the truth for his comfort, there is another complaint other than the use of the word 'my.' Now, if you visit the about us page [mycongressmanisnuts.com] on the committee in question's site you can find:

Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

I mean, he might have a case here if that US code applies to PACs. I'm not sure. Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane. Actually, I wouldn't have done anything. As Barbara Streisand might have pointed out that before this news I had never heard of nor visited My Congressman Is Nuts but now I have scanned the entire site out of curiosity.

You can read the Statement of Organization on the FEC's website [nictusa.com]. Note that Grayson has accused Mycongressmanisnuts.com of checking box f instead of box c, thus misrepresenting the function of their PAC and violating the law [cornell.edu]. Additionally Grayson has alleged the PAC is in fact a connected committee due to her status as the former head of the Lake County Republican Party. They will haul you away if you file your taxes improperly, and this isn't any different. The FEC even gives you a guide [fec.gov] to filling out the

All Mr Grayson is doing is what Democrats should have been doing years ago. Republicans want to talk about death panels and pulling the plug on grandma? Fine, they should be prepared to listen to the other side using the same kind of emotional language.

I typically vote for Democrats rather than Republicans because they don't do the same hyperbolic bullshit, or at least don't do it nearly as often. If they're going to start pulling this crap, then I'll henceforth start filing "voting for a Democrat" in the same category as "voting for Sarah Palin".

I typically vote for Democrats rather than Republicans because they don't do the same hyperbolic bullshit, or at least don't do it nearly as often. If they're going to start pulling this crap, then I'll henceforth start filing "voting for a Democrat" in the same category as "voting for Sarah Palin".

Democrats are every bit as emotional and idiotic as Republicans. They constantly run adds "about the children", they constantly talk about "fascism" and "nazis", they constantly try to limit free speech when it is for the common good or involves things they don't agree with (e.g. hate speech). Don't get me wrong the GOP is certainly no better but the days of rational debate on either side is long gone, neither party holds to the principles of individual freedom and equal treatment, and emotion is all any of them go after. And the reason is it works on way too many people who can't be bothered to educate themselves.

Now if you want to compare who does more of it I would suggest we look over time at who is the majority and who is the minority party. I'm guessing you'll find that the minority is nearly always the more hysterical and emotional of the two as they're trying to break the status quo and it requires more energy to get people to go out and change things.

Oh and this guy is an idiot...way to teach me your name Mr. Grayson and way to show me how little you actually value the basic principles of this country. Regardless of the letter of the law regarding PACs (and I have no idea what it is) the fact that you want to put a critic in jail shows me that you're not suited to represent anyone in a country that supposedly values free speech and criticism of its rulers. Given the chance I will gladly vote against this guy in any future elections.

Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

What, and Democrats haven't done the same thing? Were you around for the debate on social security privatization? If you listened to them back then you'd have thought that the GOP was aiming to put America's seniors into concentration camps.

As you can see from the 2000 and 2004 elections, the voters respond much better to emotional messages (particularly the emotion known as 'fear' as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know too well) than they do to something as mundane as logic.

And the 2008 election was immune? Barack Obama's entire campaign was one of sweeping emotion. Emotion that "change" was on the way, emotion that we'd be able to "rise above" our "petty differences", emotion that he would "transcend" race, etc, etc.

You really can't claim that the Democrats are any better. Democrats and Republicans use the same playbook. If you think any differently then you must be a partisan for one side or the other.

Yes, both sides use the same tricks. But the "playing on their fears" technique is something that was really perfected by Nixon's campaign staffers and some (not all) Republicans take this tactic to ridiculous extremes (e.g. "Joe the Plumber"). Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road. But rhetoric is a part of every campaign, and Obama himself is gifted at it.

It's older than Nixon. Johnson did it [wikipedia.org]. Those before him did it to. There probably hasn't been a President since George Washington (the only guy who didn't want the job) who hasn't used these types of techniques.

Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. How exactly did Obama take the "high road"? His whole campaign was straight out of Reagan's (very successful) 1984 playbook. "Change we can believe in" == "It's morning in America." He gave people warm fuzzies, so when they saw his big, charismatic grin, they remembered the warm fuzzies. Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign. The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator. It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."

Rhetoric was his entire campaign. . . It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."

He had more the Rhetoric. He ran on changes that he would make (Pulling us out of Iraq, Focusing more on Al Qaeda & Afghanistan, Overhauling the Healthcare system, etc.). The problem is, Change sounds fine and dandy, until it starts to happen and everyone wants it done a different way.

I never said he didn't have policy. In fact, he was quite clear about what his proposed policy was. It's why I didn't vote for him, despite his awesome rhetorical powers. But you and I are not the people he was campaigning to. You and I were already sold one way or another. There was nothing he could do to win my vote short of changing his policy, and there was nothing he could do to lose your vote short of changing his policy. He was campaigning for people in places like Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado-

It's not like some dude named Bill was regularly lambasted for him hammy appeals to emotion. Back in like, 92. Totally never happened. People still to this day don't say things like "for the children" and "i feel your pain" in a poor impression of some guy named Bill in an ironic manner.

People are certainly free to create parties, but there is no reason they need to be officially recognized by the government. Why should parties be listed on an official ballot so that idiots can easily vote straight ticket? If you aren't informed enough to know the name of the person you want to vote for, you aren't informed enough to vote.

Can you imagine if every name wasn't followed by (R) or (D)? People might actually have to listen and learn rather than just wait for the right letter to appear before kn

*blinks* Do you mean if we had privatized SocSec from the start and invested evenly in the Dow? Much, much, much, much better off. Or do you mean if we had gone with Bush's plan? In which case the answer would be nobody who could accept Bush's plan would currently be receiving SocSec because his plan had a cut-off age to start it and nobody over that age could participate, which means no one currently drawing SocSec would have a privatized plan.

Ah, that would be called "welfare". We already have that program so we can just wind SS down (contributions stop today, everyone gets benefits based on creditable quarters to date).

Making SS highly "needs based" (it is somewhat today in the sense that some SS benefits become taxable if you have enough other income) will cause support for it to drop quickly. It's pretty hard to justify taking 12.4% of a person's salary through their entire working career just for a

It's hard to justify already. I'm 28, so I will reach todays retirement age in 39 years, which assumes it isn't raised before I get to 67.

According to a recent GAO study, SS will be insolvent before I reach that age. In effect, I'm already paying tax into a program I will receive zero benefit from. My tax dollars are support YESTERDAYs retirees. It's a ponzi scheme. Always has been. You need massive inflation growth or people to die much faster to keep it solvent.

Let me invest that tax money the way I see fit in my 401k and I guarantee you I will do better than the SS program will do for me.

Every indication is that SS is going to be completely dried up well before you or I reach retirement age. A very low-risk 401(k) is almost certainly going to do better than 0, and in the long run, most of the higher-risk investments will probably do so as well. No guarantees, but that's life. As it stands now, paying into social security is quite literally as effective as flushing your money down the toilet. Hell, even savings bonds are a better investment - and they won't even match inflation.

My guess would be that she spent most of her career in a government pension fund instead of contributing to SS so had very few SS credits having contributed to it only for a few quarters.

(Isn't it odd that one of the few groups that gets to opt out of SS are some government workers - while almost every other worker and their employer is forced to stay in SS? Goose, Gander comes to mind for some reason...)

Not if she was a federal employee since before 1984. She paid into the federal retirement system, not SS. There are some partial payment criteria that may be in play here. For example, she may get some little bit of SS disability. But this can get complicated and I don't know enough to talk about it.

But I wish you'd tell us who you are so I can sell you stuff you don't need at inflated prices and you won't care.

Do you eschew markets when you buy or sell things (used cars, new cars, houses, your labor etc...). Do you willingly sell well below "market" price or refuse to accept "market" price (meaning you never find a buyer)?

Why do people reject markets - are they scared of them and trust politicians and the electorate to treat them more nicely? If you're 60 or 70 years old, maybe you can get away with that as you will probably die before the SS system collapses under its own weight (coupled with a general permanent decline in the US economy now that we have exited the "Century of America" and move into the "Century of Asia"). If you're 30 or below, the older folks will "own" your paycheck by their voting power through much of your career - get used to it.

Not true. Democrats have stood idly by for too long while Republicans get up in the House and make hyperbolic speeches about 'death panels' and 'socialism' while the Dems have just tried to be Mr Nice Guy in the hope that the voters will reward them.

Yep. I mean, something like comparing opposition to a bill to being in favor of slavery. A Democrat would NEVER do something like that.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

IIRC, it was actually the democratic party that opposed banning slavery, with democrats being the "conservatives" of the time and the republicans being the agents of change

Actually, to be more accurate, it was the Southern portion of the Democratic party that was against Abolition. At that time, and basically up to the time of various Civil Rights legislation, the Democratic Party tried to be a national party. It was the civil rights legislation, along with things like Strom Thurmond's (in)famous speech u

Republicans have become masters of the art of pressing the emotional buttons over and over again even if their message is laced with lies and half truths

True - they have.

But maybe you forget the whole "feeling your pain" thing that some dude leveraged to win the Presidency back in 1992? Appeal to emotion is a key tactic for many many politicians. It just tends to be that people don't notice when "their side" does it.

Big pharma is making a killing right now. I think healthcare has had all the "innovation" it can take. Doctors don't know how much the drugs really cost, so they prescribe the newest patented combination drugs. Patients don't know how much the drugs really cost, so they get the best they can get for a good price. This is of course by design. Insurance rates skyrocket, insurance companies rake in the dough.

The average consumer does not understand that the patented combination drugs they take are horrifically

Healthcare needs massive government intervention. Way beyond what either party is proposing. In theory a free market would remove these types of inefficiencies, but healthcare is the least free market I can think of. It's heavily regulated.

How does this make sense? You're right that heavy regulation and excessive government intervention has all but eliminated free market pressures from keeping prices in check. But how, then, do you come to the conclusion that the solution is... more government intervention?

"Banks" are regulated and the amount of money thay can "create" is limited, in part, by government mandated reserve requirements. And, yes, we do know this.

Indeed, the government can just "print" money to pay for social welfare programs. However, the result is a highly regressive "tax" in the form of inflation (it hits everything, including necessities such as food and transportation). Such inflation causes interest rates to climb -- and makes it even harder for people who really need loans (to buy a use

In your opinion. In my opinion the Democratic party is worse. Now, neither of us has any unbiased and reliable data to support our beliefs so who is correct? We cannot both be correct. Both parties could be similarly "repulsive", the Democrats could be worse, or the Republicans could be worse. But as it stands it is simply a matter of opinion.

Democrats get us through the recessions but then don't put that money into paying off deficits instead increase spending even more.

Actually, when we had those nice surpluses under Clinton, he and Gore were saying we should use the surpluses to start paying down the national debt. It was the Congressional Republicans who torpedoed that idea.

It's impossible to say one side is worse than the other without having the blinders of partisanship in place. They are all repulsive in the extreme and anyone who tries to argue that their party is "not as bad as the other guys" is deluded. That's not necessarily throwing up one's hands to let the problem continue, though it will continue as long as we keep letting these corrupt people into office.

For every example of 'bad' behavior on the part of one party, there is a corresponding example from the other

I think we need to come up with better candidates that aren't a part of either party and vote them in. I haven't been crazy about independent choices up until now either, so I think the solution begins with finding good candidates. Though I have voted independent in the past because I am so fed up with the whole current regime.

I think it's high time we started shunning both parties and voting for independent. Both parties are corporate vetted.

Since our winner-take-all system is fundamentally rigged against third parties, voting for an independent just makes it that much cheaper and easier for corporations to get their way. Good for you. As a side bonus, it ensures that the party you like least is more likely to win.

Dems are the biggest racists on the planet. Keep people dependent on you forever.

I find it cute that this opinion is consistently voiced by people who are well beyond middle-class in status, or who chose to disregard the many ways in which they receive support from others.

It's a nice cop-out, and makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the matter. After all, anyone who supports any type of social services clearly just wants to keep the black man (and woman) in poverty./sarcasm

Pretty much attributable to LBJ and the fact that he more or less hoodwinked them into thinking that the Democrats were responsible for the 1964 CRVA(They weren't, the Republicans were) And then giving them a straight up bribe that was entirely a poison pill in his Great Society. Oddly enough, pretty much the moment that passed, the poverty rate stopped declining.

That's the kind of thing a drunk guys says at a party to try to appear insightful. Actually, it's not. It's just plain stupid. A lack of diverse choice in political parties is not the same thing as having two equivalent choices.

The issue here, though, is not what the blogger has a right to say, but what a registered PAC has the right to say. In return for PACs being granted a special status in tax law and election law, they have to follow certain rules. Most PACs have found ways to bend the rules to the point of silliness, but still follow the letter of the law. This site explicitly states that the group was created solely to battle a single politician, so it really shouldn't be a PAC.

You seem to be saying that defamation laws should not be a limitation on free speech (but that people should choose to avoid it as it is unconvincing). I don't agree with that, although I suspect we do agree on the point that saying that any particular poiltician "is nuts" should not constitute defamation.

Defamation must be harming, and it's a defense if it is true. Is saying "he is nuts" harming? Because "nuts" doesn't imply any specific action or pattern of action, I wouldn't think it to be saying any

it looks to me that he actually has a valid complaint, however minor that complaint might be.

Only if you buy into his premise that the name of the PAC is the sole criteria that defines the PACs scope and purpose, and it's not. As for the rest, all she has to do is give money to more than one candidate and she's off the hook. The fact that she's not raised a ton of money is an unavoidable practical defense on her part with regard to that.

From the complaint: Moreover, in the Fox 35 interview, when the interviewer said "so your goal is to unseat him [meaning Grayson]" Ms. Langley's response was "absolutely, that is our entire goal"

If you can provide reference to one single instance of that PAC promoting any candidate instead of tearing down Grayson (which is easy to do, the guy is a moron) I will concede your point. But as of right now, Mycongressmanisnuts.com promotes no candidate. Besides, what poli

Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.

I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.

Not that it doesn't belong here, but this is less tech story and more a human story.

I agree with you. But one interesting (somewhat) relevant aspect of this article is the fact that it was online. Does it make a difference that it was a blog? Would he have any different legal footing if she had said this on television or on the radio? The web version certainly does leave a quite tangible trace of the "crime". Finally, if anything becomes of this, will it set a precedent? These are certainly interesting topics to explore.

Actually, the "crime" here is that she organized a PAC with legal status with the FEC in order to solicit funds to defeat Grayson in the next election. Only, PACs must endorse more than one candidate or be against more than one candidate.

The reason the word "my" comes into play here is that she is not one of his constituents although she is soliciting money and funds from people under the misrepresentation that she is.

This isn't about whether Grayson is trying to censor opposing viewpoints, this is about i

According to the article, the blogger criticized the congressman for his "childish approach" towards governing.

Of course that's the rub. The article and the Slashdot summary misrepresent the complaint that is in the letter. It is actually about the Political Committee the woman organized to raise funds to support election campaigns. And while she is referred to here as a blogger, she was a former employee of the Republican National Committee. One of the things Congressman Grayson points out in his lett

My understanding of the situation (from the discussion of this same story on Fark a day or two ago) is that the main charge isn't even misrepresenting where she lives; it's telling the FEC that her PAC raises money for many candidates while actually only raising money for one, which lets her get around donation limits.

Well, in theory she's raising money against one candidate. That money could be going to any number of politicians who are opposed to that candidate's policies. I believe that the PAC laws are written in terms of how many candidates you support, rather than how many candidates you are against. It's possible that she may still have a problem if all the money raised went directly to a single opposing candidate; but that isn't necessarily the case.

Yep. I think the action of trying to put someone in jail for 5 years for creating a blog criticizing you, will have great consequences for the congressman. Hopefully people will get fed up at our leaders recommending draconian punishment for the most trivial of things.

Before you comment about this from a political perspective, think about the kind of punishment proposed by the congressman within the context of a "three strikes" IP law that everyone seems to be clamoring for.

If super punitive punishments for things like this gain a foothold, look out, because they'll be coming into every aspect of your lives.

I've always been bothered by the idea that voters who elect representative officials are limited to talking to just those officials on matters that have national scale and scope... in other words, just about everything the federal government does.

I mean, why shouldn't I as a citizen of the state of Abstraction be able to ask the Senator from the state of Facts to vote for a proposal that is in the best interests of the American people?g=

Is lying, in a political context, a crime? If the Vice President lies about wmd in Iraq, is that a crime? If Monsanto lies about their political contributions, is that a crime? If a blogger lies about her relationship with a Congressman, is that crime?

Lying in a political context is hard to prosecute, unless it rises to the level of libel, which has a pretty high bar for public officials, and an even higher bar for political speech about public officials.

Lying on forms filed with the government is illegal, though, under a blanket "don't lie to the government" law. The jail part of the complaint seems to be for allegedly misrepresenting the PAC on the filing documents with the FEC: the filed documents claim the PAC isn't aimed at any particular opponent, but the website clearly is aimed at one opponent.

Besides, the domain name makes sense from a different context: the viewer's. When a viewer in his district goes there, it would be ostensibly be *their* congressman. It's like "MyFreeCreditReport.com" or "MyCorporation.com" or whatever. They're not claiming ownership -- they're offering service for the viewer, with a name relative to the viewer.

Should we sue Intuit because they're claiming ownership of corporations created at mycorporation.com?

If we are going to treat lying as a crime (and IMHO breaking campaign promises is clearly lying) then there are going to be a whole lot of people going to jail. I foresee lots of openings in Washington. I won't name any names, but there would be 435 vacancies in the House of Representatives, 100 in the Senate and 2 in the Executive Branch.

No, but denying health care to people resulting in the deaths of thousands sounds pretty close to me.

You know what's gonna happen? This profit-over-human-life doctrine is eventually going to be abolished, and it will be remembered in the future the way slavery is remembered now. A small number of special interests and their hillbilly followers thought it was a great idea at the time, but eventually peoples' values changed and the full extent of the suffering and loss of life became clear.

BTW, his use of the word 'holocaust' was entirely appropriate. 'Holocaust' is not a word that has been reserved exclusively for the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. If people are dying in their hundreds every day at the hands of profit making health insurance extortionists, then to call it a holocaust is putting it fucking mildly.

Yeah...paying for services and free emergency room service for everyone who can't is a true holocaust. Way to put it "fucking mildly."

I am pretty sure the FCC is headed that way. Congress would just as likely modify their Congressional Incumbents Protection Act (McCain/Feingold) to keep any criticism of a sitting Congressman. Why not, its not like they care what you think until its time to vote.

It all comes down to arrogance not seen since the late 1700s in France. The "ruling" class while "elected" has no problem in engineering a system by which they cannot be criticized (see McCain/Feingold) but will change laws to prevent people from voting against them (redistricting - Voter Rights Act - not prosecuting thugs at election sites - philly).

Grayson is an embarrassment to his district, but like voters in Louisiana proved, money in the freezer does not mean your guilty, just stupid. Remember all Congressmen and bad except yours.

She can say (just about) whatever she wants as a private citizen--constituent or not, but if she's taking political contributions as a PAC, she needs to play by the already much-too-lose campaign finance laws.

Langley criticizes Grayson on her Web site for his "inappropriate behavior" and "childish approach" toward governing, and claims he "does not represent the values of central Florida." Grayson has pretty much made her case for her with this inappropriate and childish attack on her web site. The term "Streisand Effect" also comes to mind. I hope mycongressmanisnuts.com carries advertising, 'cause this dick move is going to drive a metric shitload of traffic to the site!

At first glance it appears that a Democratic congressman is suing a blogger for using "my" in the name of her website because she really isn't his constituent. Is this all there is to this story? Bear in mind, the only source I've found is Fox News which isn't exactly balanced reporting (if any of them are). From the story: "In a four-page letter sent to Holder, Grayson accuses Langley of lying to federal elections and requests that she be fined and imprisoned for five years." So what I can tell Langley had been questioned by some sort of official. Grayson says she lied. So her crime might be she lied to some officials about where she lived which isn't a high crime but is a crime.

Here's what I think went down: Grayson gets attacked on her site. He investigates the site to know whether it is by a PAC or an independent blogger. If it's a PAC there are various disclosures that must be done. Officials question Langley. Grayson thinks she lied about her constituency at least (and maybe other things like her independence). So he asks for legal action. Fox is spinning it to be more sensational than it is for ratings.

Notice that the story, complete with the completely false, yellow journalism, headline, is only being run by Fox News. I saw the story on Google News earlier, and wanted to read the actual facts. However, so far no reputable news organization has bothered to report it. Something to keep in mind.

What seems to be the actual story is that the Congressman sent a rather routine notice to the FEC about a likely violation of PAC status and election law. All the "trying to send to prison" bit is just a deceptive way of saying that, well yes, laws do have legal force (including ultimately penalties).

Media should be Ashamed, They always yelled about people receiving Republican marching orders of some sort, While they have been doing it. thou dost protest too much, methinks I would love to get me some of those marching orders from the Republicans because that would mean they actually are not in shambles and chaotic.

Interestingly, TFA is from Fox News, which pretty much NEVER fails to note the party of a political official in a scandal, regardless of the party they are in, including this one.

Right, Fox News just lies [mediamatters.org] about what party the scandal-ridden politicians belong to.

Seriously, after they repeatedly represented scandal-ridden Republicans as Democrats, and misrepresented footage from previous events as being from more recent ones (tea parties, Palin book signings) to make crowds look larger than they actually were, I don't know how anyone can hold up Fox News as a paragon of journalistic integrity anymore. And please don't trot out the old tired argument that "everyone else is just as bad or worse". The fact is Fox News routinely does this sort of thing, and acting like they're in any way "fair and balanced" is just absurd.

Way to engage in ad hominem rather than address the point -- you know, the screen capture of Fox identifying Sanford as a democrat, or the side by side video clips proving footage was used out of turn.

Everything has a bias to it. Slashdot has a libertarian leaning bias, Dailykos has a left bias and Fox News is right leaning. It is the reader's job to look critically at what other people say and decide for themselves regardless of the political slant. As for leaving off the D-fla next to his name, I'd say that you could look at it two ways: 1) a party shouldn't be singled out in media or 2) party affiliation is irrelevant; the conduct of a particular congress critter is what is important. Mostly I'd s

The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind. They aren't the most in-depth or interesting reads, but if you're looking for just-the-facts reporting they are usually pretty good. Basically, the wire services will tell you what happened. Period. End of story. They won't tell you much if anything about why it happened, how it happened, who will benefit from it happening, who didn't want it to happen, and so on, but if all you want to

You got modded a troll, what a shame. Your statement is correct. Fox News is anything but fair and balanced...well unless you are a republican. If Fox news says anything nice about a liberal then it's probably that the liberal just resigned office - and even then...

BTW - for the 323,325 commenters - yes democrats have their own media sources - CNN. CNN went from the really good news start up, to a liberal news group, to the liberal insanity group (and I'm a democrat). It's gotten to the point that wa

The linked article is by Fox News, the media arm of the Republican party. That alone should make you question every word of the article.

If you don't question every word of every article, why bother to read them at all? Just because Fox News is decidedly Neo-Con, doesn't mean that every other news outlet is automatically trustworthy. Everyone who's ever used print to communicate has 'intentionally deceived their readers' by some definition or another. Your brain is supposed to be in the 'on' position when you deal with important topics. Personally I have found that most people are smarter than you seem to be giving them credit for...

Now I remember why I almost never read/watch Fox news. I was scratching my head wondering what the connection is between a domain name, and lieing to the Federal Elections Commission. Last time I checked, a DNS registration is not submitted to the FEC.

Reading that statement, I knew there had to be more to this story, but good luck getting it from Fox News. They must really think everyone is stupid (or maybe they just *don't* care about non-stupid people - we aren't in their demographic, I guess).

Grayson [wikipedia.org] is a joke. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

I've tried to ignore him, yet it's difficult when you actually live in central FL and you hear about him in the news on a weekly basis. I'm not even a republican, yet I cringe every time I hear him being interviewed- he's got an enormous ego and an even bigger mouth. He's the most annoying kind of politician- one who believes he's a populist yet no one actually likes him. Out of all of the reasonable people that democrats had running in the 2008 election for my district, we somehow ended up with a guy who can't debate without personally insulting people, refers to those who disagree with the current healthcare legislation "murderers", called a woman a "whore" on national television, etc... there's nothing professional about him. No surprise that he's trying to get some blog critical of him shut down.

Alan Grayson like a liberal Jack Thompson, only he still has power. He's a disgrace to my district, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that my neighbors in central FL were either stupid or ill-informed enough to elect him.